Smith V New - Judgment Search Results

Khaja SamshudIn Alias Khaja Suekroo Vs. Pyari Lal Das, Chairman, Dacca ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1921Cal161,60Ind.Cas.498

: 47 J.P. 630. The sub-stance of the matter is that bare ownership does not constitute rateable occupation Smith v. New Forest Union (1889) 61 L.T. 870 : 54 J.P. 324; or, in other words, every owner is not

Brian William Achurch Vs. the Queen

Court: Australia High Court

may correct their errors before their orders are formally recorded. As was said in the joint judgment in Smith v New South Wales Bar Association[36]: "It has long been the common law that a court may review, correct or

Haring Vs. Prosise

Court: US Supreme Court

court in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Anderson, supra, at 389, 105 S.E.2d at 872. See also Smith v. New Dixie Lines, Inc., 201 Va. 466, 472-473, 111 S.E.2d 434, 438-439 (1959). Since a § 1983 action is

Delta Air Lines, Inc. Vs. August

Court: US Supreme Court

Railroads, 266 F. 600 (Mont.1920); Margulis v. Solomon & Berck Co., 223 App.Div. 634, 229 N.Y.S. 157 (1928); Smith v. New York, O. & W. R. Co., 119 Misc. 506, 196 N.Y.S. 521 (1922); McNally v. Rowan, 101 App.Div.

Smith Vs. Yeager

Court: US Supreme Court

alia, that petitioner's confession, introduced at his trial, was not the product of coercion. United States ex rel. Smith v. New Jersey, 201 F.Supp. 272. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 322 F.2d 810. [ Footnote 1 ] Page 393

Kunz Vs. New York

Court: US Supreme Court

People v. Smith, 263 N.Y. 255, 188 N.E. 745, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, Smith v. New York, 292 U.S. 606 (1934). Smith, who had not applied for a permit under the ordinance, argued that … of municipalities was regarded by this Court as consistent with the Constitution. It approved this identical ordinance in Smith v. New York, 292 U.S. 606. [ Footnote 2/6 ] This decision is now overruled. Although the ordinance was then

United States Vs. Causby

Court: US Supreme Court

the flight of its planes. Cf. Warren Township School Dist. v. Detroit, 308 Mich. 460, 14 N.W.2d 134; Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., 270 Mass. 511, 170 N.E. 385; Burnham v. Beverly Airways, Inc., 311 Mass. 628, 42

Chicago and Northwestern Ry. Co. Vs. Whitnack Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

MR. JUSTICE CLARKE took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause. [ Footnote 1 ] Smith v. New York Cent. R. Co., 43 Barb. (N.Y.) 225; Cote v. N.Y. N.H. & H. R. Co., 182 Mass.

Taylor and Marshall Vs. Beckham

Court: US Supreme Court

Mayor, 5 N.Y. 285; Donahue v. Will County, 100 Ill. 94; Attorney General v. Jochim, 99 Mich. 358; Smith v. New York, 37 N.Y. 520; State v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98; State v. Davis, 44 Mo. 129; State

Covington Stockyards Co. Vs. Keith

Court: US Supreme Court

; Hall v. Renfro, 3 Met. (Ky.) 51, 54; Mynard v. Syracuse & Binghamton Railroad, 71 N.Y. 180; Smith v. New Haven & Northampton Railroad, 12 Allen 531, 533; Kimball v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad, 26 Vt. 247, 255;